There might be another word for your reasoning, but the one that gently comes to mind is “assertoric”, but without any surrounding evidence. Maybe a new category of Aristotelian argument: assertoric-problematic.

There are many examples of this in your post, but this one is a shining example:

“It's very easy to see though that if hyper inflation occurs which is generally an inevitable consequence of rapidly expanding the money supply beyond reason will lead to reductions in life expectancy although briefly as is shown during the collapse of the USSR in the 90s.”

It seems odd to have to state the obvious, but the entire political system of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact nations collapsed and splintered. Perhaps this is new information for you. (BTW, I traveled the regions for 3 months at the time) Which had nothing to do with money supply.

In every instance (and there aren’t really that many) where hyper-inflation has occurred and expanding the money supply (eg. Weimar Republic, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc.) occurred, the cause had nothing to do with the monetary mechanism per se. The cause was political. Another analogy might be to say democracy doesn’t work because people didn’t vote. Never mind who owned power (eg., police and military) and how it was used.

Clearly your understanding of game theory is lacking. Or you have some new version that hasn’t yet been published. The individual participants in China, Mongolia, Russia, et al. of the BGP are not the decision makers.

I hate to be so blunt, but your lots of words are not a replacement for any empirical view. They’re just strung-together opinions lacking any evidence or even consistent logic. And many of them I can’t help but characterize as a manifestation that seems very common in the “Libertarian”, “free-marketeers”, “crypto-cult”, etc.: belief and simple assertion equals truth or evidence. Just as “minimal governance” leads to magically better societies with no extant examples or history apart from places like Somalia. And, no, Singapore is not one unless a pre-requisite is a semi-autocratic state.

There is a paradoxical but unavoidable similarity of the aforementioned believers to Marxists. Apart from objectives, the community differs only in that Marx tried to create a much more elaborate and semi-coherent construct for his beliefs.

But here is the quote of yours where it ends:

“I don't want any authority to control inflation it defeats the entire purpose of a free market.”

Now, please define a “free market” and please point to any extant or historical examples and how this works. You can be the Marx of the movement if you come up with that.